```

[House Report 109-292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    109-292

======================================================================
 
      COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION

                                _______
                                

 November 14, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 
                Infrastructure, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1721]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1721) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act to reauthorize programs to improve the 
quality of coastal recreation waters, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 1721 is to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act) to reauthorize 
appropriations for the coastal recreation water quality program 
within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Beaches are an important part of American life. Each year 
over 180 million people visit our nation's coastal waters for 
recreational purposes. This activity supports over 28 million 
jobs and leads to investments of over $50 billion in goods and 
services. It is important to give the public confidence in the 
quality of our nation's coastal waters. This confidence is 
important not only to each person who swims, but also to the 
tourism and recreation industries that rely on safe and 
swimmable coastal waters.
    In October 2000, Congress passed the Beaches Environmental 
Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-284; 
commonly called the BEACH Act) to improve the public's 
confidence in the quality of our nation's coastal waters and 
protect public health and safety. The BEACH Act amended the 
Clean Water Act to require states to update their water quality 
standards to incorporate criteria for protecting human health 
from pathogens in coastal recreation waters, and to require EPA 
to issue new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens 
and pathogen indicators. The BEACH Act also added section 406 
to the Clean Water Act, which authorized a grant program to 
provide funding for states and local governments to develop and 
implement programs for beach water quality monitoring and 
notification to the public of exceedances of water quality 
standards for pathogens in coastal recreation waters.
    Under the BEACH Act, EPA has been developing new water 
quality criteria to protect human health from pathogens, and 
states are updating their water quality standards for 
recreational coastal waters to incorporate these more 
protective criteria. EPA also has been making grants to states 
to help them implement programs to monitor beach water quality 
and notify the public if water quality standards for pathogens 
are not being met.
    The BEACH Act authorized, for each of fiscal years 2001 
through 2005, such sums as are necessary to carry out the Act's 
program provisions and $30 million for EPA to make program 
development and implementation grants under Clean Water Act 
section 406.

                       Summary of the Legislation

Section 1. Coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification

    Section 1 of H.R. 1721 amends Section 406(i) of the Clean 
Water Act to extend the authorization of appropriations of $30 
million per year for program development and implementation 
grants under section 406 through fiscal year 2011.

Section 2. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 2 of H.R. 1721 amends Section 8 of the Beaches 
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 to 
extend the authorization of appropriations of such sums as are 
necessary to implement the Act's program provisions through 
fiscal year 2011.

            Legislative History and Committee Consideration

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in 
open session on October 26, 2005, and ordered H.R. 1721 
reported, without amendment, to the House by voice vote.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to include the total number of 
votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to 
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, 
and the names of those members voting for and against. There 
were no recorded votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 
1721 reported. A motion to order H.R. 1721 reported to the 
House was agreed to by voice vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget 
Office included below.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to 
restore and protect the nation's coastal recreation waters and 
protect human health through the development and implementation 
of new water quality criteria and standards and beach water 
quality monitoring and notification programs.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
1721 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                  November 9, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1721, a bill to 
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize 
programs to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters, 
and for other purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S. 
Mehlman (for federal costs), and Lisa Ramirez-Branum (for the 
state and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                               Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1721--A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
        reauthorize programs to improve the quality of coastal 
        recreation waters, and for other purposes

    Summary: H.R. 1721 would authorize appropriations through 
fiscal year 2011 for the water quality program that benefits 
coastal states under the Clean Water Act. Under this program, 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides grants to 
state or local governments to support their efforts to monitor 
the quality of coastal waters and notify the public of any 
conditions where beach water does not meet established 
standards. Under current law, EPA was authorized to receive 
annual appropriations of $30 million for grants and such sums 
as may be necessary to manage this water quality program 
through 2005.
    Assuming the appropriation of necessary funds, CBO 
estimates that implementing this legislation would cost $10 
million in 2006 and $121 million over the 2006-2010 period, 
with additional spending occurring in later years. Enacting the 
bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 1721 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
Any costs to state or local governments would be the result of 
complying with grant conditions.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1721 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2006     2007     2008     2009     2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority \1\...........................................       11        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................       12        6        3        1        0
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level..................................       20       31       31       31       31
    Estimated Outlays..............................................       10       23       27       30       31
Spending Under H.R. 1721:
    Estimated Authorization Level \1\..............................       31       31       31       31       31
    Estimated Outlays..............................................       22       29       30       31       31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2006 level is the amount appropriated for that year for both grants and EPA program management.

    Basis of estimate: The bill would authorize the 
appropriation of $30 million annually over the 2006-2011 for 
grants to states to implement beach water quality and public 
notification programs. For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
1721 will be enacted before the end of calendar year 2005 and 
that the necessary funds will be appropriated for each year. We 
also assume that additional amounts up to the authorized level 
will be appropriated for grants in 2006 and that, in subsequent 
years, the appropriation will be provided at the full 
authorized level of $30 million annually. Based on historical 
spending patterns for those programs, CBO estimates that 
providing the grants would cost $117 million over the 2006-2010 
period.
    H.R. 1721 also would authorize the appropriation of such 
sums as may be necessary for EPA to establish new criteria for 
monitoring water quality and to manage the program through 
2011. Assuming appropriations for such administrative 
activities would continue at the 2006 level (with annual 
inflation adjustments), CBO estimates that implementing the 
program would cost about $1 million a year over the 2007-2011 
period. In total, CBO estimates that outlays resulting from the 
appropriations for grants and administrative activities would 
sum to $121 million over the 2006-2010 period, with additional 
spending occurring in later years.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1721 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. The bill would reauthorize water quality 
programs that benefit coastal states. Much of the funding 
authorized in the bill would be directed in the form of grants 
to public or private entities such as qualified state and local 
governments. Any costs to these governments from the 
requirements of the program, including matching funds, would be 
incurred voluntarily.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
Branum. Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or 
joint resolution of a public character shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 1721 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

         SECTION 406 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

SEC. 406. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated for making grants under subsection (b), 
including implementation of monitoring and notification 
programs by the Administrator under subsection (h), $30,000,000 
for each of fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2011.
                              ----------                              

 SECTION 8 OF THE BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND COASTAL HEALTH 
                              ACT OF 2000

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this 
Act, for which amounts are not otherwise specifically 
authorized to be appropriated, such sums as are necessary for 
each of fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2011.

                                  

```